webofevil: (Default)
webofevil ([personal profile] webofevil) wrote2006-05-02 01:32 pm

"For 10 points, 'No' means... what? Anyone?"

The “upskirts” guy, contrary to the initial BBC report, which had the trial judge ordering the jury to return a “not guilty” verdict—though that paragraph was later hurriedly replaced with the words “The trial continues”—has been sent down for 3 years 9 months: 2 years for downloading child pornography, 3 years concurrent for possessing and downloading child pornography (no, I don't quite understand that either), and just 9 months for taking his own “upskirt” shots of young girls on trains and in Chichester supermarkets.

Clearly what he needed in his life was a hard-hitting Home Office campaign to explain where he'd been going wrong. Something like this, for example:



Do you see what they've done? “Enter!” Cheeky as well as hard-hitting, and they've managed to get a woman's belly and pants on the poster, eh lads! No-one's intelligence is insulted, it's all handled deftly and with good taste, no rape victims could possibly take exception to it, and the essential problematic myth that drunk woman = slapper = consent is confronted head-on and dispelled once and for all. Good work all round.

However, that ad is a work of agitprop genius next to its companion:



Far from challenging any troubling conventional perceptions, this poster's main message, as my esteemed colleague has remarked in astonishment, appears to be that “the bitch might report you”. £500k well spent, there.

[identity profile] louiseofthes.livejournal.com 2006-05-02 04:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Dear God, I mean I might "buy" a pair of those pants...

[identity profile] ex-cornfedpi814.livejournal.com 2006-05-03 12:34 pm (UTC)(link)
I meant the whole bald man. Not the little one in his trousers.